Information is wanted on Garry Kasparov’s belief in, or espousal
of, the theory of New Chronology (Fomenko). As in the case of Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov and Aliens, our interest is solely in first-hand
statements, i.e. remarks by Kasparov himself, in the original
Russian or English.
(8671)
From Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore):
‘In a multiple-volume work History: Fiction or Science?
Anatoly T. Fomenko, one of the key proponents of New
Chronology, acknowledged Kasparov’s support several times. Two
examples come from Volume 1 (published in 2003), in the
introductory essay “History of New Chronology” by Fomenko and
Gleb V. Nosovsky:
Kasparov’s involvement in this fringe theory has seldom been
mentioned in the Western press.
In an article entitled “King Arthur was really a Russian,
say Slavs” on page 21 of the Daily Telegraph,
19 April 2001 Marcus Warren, a Moscow-based reporter, wrote:
“The school [New Chronology] has also secured the energetic
support of Garry Kasparov, the chess grandmaster.”
Warren quoted Kasparov’s own words:
“‘I consider myself to be part of a team. It’s quite a big
group and it’s expanding’, said Kasparov, who is fronting a
television series on the inconsistencies of traditional
chronology.”
On 24 April 2001 Warren wrote a follow-up
article for the Telegraph giving more
particulars regarding Kasparov and New Chronology and with
several quotes.
Internet searches offer some clues for further research. On
23 August 2010 Timothy Taylor posted on his website the transcript
of a 2001 interview (“originally published in Saturday Night
online, 2001”) in which he spoke at length with Kasparov about
New Chronology.
An essay by Kasparov, “Mathematics of the Past” , in which
he espoused his theories on history, has circulated on the
Internet. For some years it was available at
www.new-tradition.org, an outlet used by New Chronology
supporters which now seems defunct, but the full text of the
essay is easily found elsewhere on-line.
Many mainstream academic papers and serious books dealing
with the emergence and impact of such fringe theories in
post-1990 Russia mention that Kasparov became one of Fomenko’s
most prominent supporters. For instance, on page 83 of Russia
in Search of Itself (Baltimore, 2004) James H. Billington, a
prestigious American academic, specializing in Russian
culture, and the 13th Librarian of the US Congress, wrote:
“All of this [the New Chronology theories] might have been
quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia had not the
popular chess hero Garry Kasparov lustily taken up the cause
of the new chronology in the mass circulation journal Ogonek.
Insisting that ‘whoever controls the past, controls the
future’, Kasparov accused the Germanophile Romanov dynasty of
destroying the records of Russia’s harmonious links with its
Eastern neighbors and inventing insulting names for all their
enemies.”
For Kasparov’s words “whoever controls the past, controls
the future”, on pages 184-185 Billington cited as his source
an article by Kasparov, “Istoriia s geografiei”, in the 21/22
and 23 issues of Ogonek, published in 2001. Perhaps
C.N. readers with access to Russian archives will be able to
supply those articles in full, as well as footage or
transcripts of any media appearances by Kasparov’s which are
relevant to this topic.’
(8675)
Vitaliy Yurchenko (Uhta, Komi, Russian Federation) draws
attention to Kasparov’s Foreword on pages 10-28 of Введение в
Новую Хронологию. Какой сейчас век? by G.V. Nosovsky and
A.T. Fomenko (Moscow, 2001).
Below we offer a translation of two passages which show
Kasparov’s overall view of the theory of New Chronology. They come
from, respectively, pages 9-10 and 28 of the Foreword, which is
dated 1999:
‘About a year and a half ago I came across a few books by A.T.
Fomenko and G.V. Nosovsky, mathematicians at the Moscow State
University. It turned out that for more than 20 years a group of
professional mathematicians, led by the academician A.T.
Fomenko, had been working in depth on issues concerning
chronology and that some interesting results had been achieved.
These books explained many things to me, and put many things in
their proper place. The critical analysis in the books is
exceptionally solid, provides an immense amount of valuable
material and is worth studying and discussing. At the same time,
the hypotheses and reconstructions put forward by the authors
can be challenged in some respects. It is clear that a
conclusive reconstruction of actual historical events is very
difficult to set out, and this aspect of their work will always
be open to criticism. Nevertheless, in the light of studies
already published it cannot be denied that the chronology of
“ancient” history accepted today has revealed very serious
inconsistencies which it is absolutely impossible to ignore.’
‘Respected historians who regard history as a clearly reported
record of the life of mankind will undoubtedly reject with
indignation any proposal to seek refuge within the virtual
hypostasis of history. In that case, they are welcome to join in
the discussion. The revolutionary concept of world history
created by A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovsky and their colleagues will
need to be refuted in a thorough scientific debate based on
solid arguments, without recourse to the much-loved accusations
of charlatanism and incompetence.’
(8678)
Kevin O’Connell (Mouret, France) draws attention to a kasparov.ru
page which includes the following question and answer:
‘Garry Kimovich, I saw a television programme in which you
supported the theories of Mr Fomenko. It would be interesting
to know your estimate, as a professional chessplayer (nobody
would challenge that), of how many thousands of years old the
game of chess is (beginning with chaturanga). Does its age,
six thousand years according to the most common theory, fit in
with the chronology set out by Fomenko? And how are you going
to run the State if your views on history are so original?
Will you give Rus’ the previous name Horde? – Mikhail
Evgenievich Levashov (Moscow).
I do not advocate Fomenko and Nosovsky’s theory. However, as a
man with an analytical mind-set who is used to analysing all the
information that I receive, I am very sceptical about the
constructions and findings of official history. I believe that
Fomenko and Nosovsky have rightly pointed out numerous
inconsistencies and gaps in the official concept. Instead of
pursuing their work by asking questions and dismantling schemes
which are often mythological, they have put forward a new
theory, which unfortunately is subject to the same problems.
Because it is clear that today we still lack the information
needed to create another, alternative concept. And that is why
the main attacks on Fomenko and Nosovsky’s work are not related
to the critical aspects of their work but, rather, to what is
put forward today as its positive outlook.’
Olimpiu G. Urcan notes some remarkable statements by Kasparov in
a 2000
documentary about him by Joël Calmettes, from approximately
45’00” to 52’00”.
